Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a swing vote between the four liberal and four conservative justices, suggested that children of same-sex marriages would suffer an “immediate legal injury” under the ban.

“There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red [State] Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” said Kennedy.

But Kennedy also said the court is being asked to head “into unchartered waters” because they have “only five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history.”

The justices may be eager to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds to avoid any sweeping ruling on the issue.

Kennedy raised concerns about whether the possible legalization of same-sex marriage was enough to establish that those in favor of the ban could suffer harm. If no harm can be proven, it would allow the justices to dismiss the appeal without any ruling at all.

“I just wondered if the case was property granted,” said Kennedy.

If the court dismisses the appeal, it may mean lower federal court rulings declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional would stand in California.

I don't know why we are making this so hard. Marriage is actually a license, and it is for a bride and groom. The homosexuals wanting to marry is like someone with a car license demanding to pilot a plane with that same license. Different license, folks. This is not about love - I know two sisters who live more happily together in their love than most married people. This is about the children, who deserve a mom and dad.

I don't know why we are making this so hard. Marriage is actually a license, and it is for a bride and groom. The homosexuals wanting to marry is like someone with a car license demanding to pilot a plane with that same license. Different license, folks. This is not about love - I know two sisters who live more happily together in their love than most married people. This is about the children, who deserve a mom and dad.

Personally, I don't give a rat's *** about this whole non-issue. If two people of the same sex want to get married, let 'em. Do not equate that with support of gay marriage. I simply support their right to make the same mistakes that heterosexual partners make. Marriage, as it stands today, is a joke. Heterosexual marriages dissolve with such regularity it's little more than a business agreement/partnership. This country faces far more important issues than "gay marriage" today.

Agreed. I fail to see where the constitution authorizes the feds to be involved in the issue, with the exception of the separation of Church (where the concept of monogamous heterosexual marriage is rooted) and state. I feel that the 10th A applies here -- this should be a state or individual matter. Christians (like myself) and Jews who feel that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only valid type are free to practice as such but have no business forcing other, non-believers to observe that doctrine as well.

I feel that we have a whole lot of more important issues to be solved than this. We are wasting our time, resources and political capital here. It is a sideshow, a diversion. Let's move on to more important matters.

The comparison of SSM to slavery as justification for SSM is one of the silliest self-serving straw man arguments I've ever heard.

That said there is an easy way to cure the whole dang thing, easy that is if not for the the big gubmint left.

Simply remove all advanatges to traditional marriage in federal law by not using the income tax code for social engineering of any kind. Make it a straight tax, establish a baseline poverty level for INDIVIDUALS, levy 15% on every individual or corporation for every dime in income over the baseline, and voila, 90% of the SSM argument goes away.

To solve the remaining 10% create a civil couples contract and allow all signees to receive any federal benefits that now accrue to spouses.

If the prohibition on SSM is declared unconstitutional, Jerry Lee Lewis should sue the hell out of a bunch of people.

Discrimination is the law applied differently for one group than another, I can use this facility, you can't as an example.

It is equally illegal in most states for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex as it is for a homosexual to marry someone of the same sex. That seems a pretty evenly applied law, its the same for everyone.

How do parinas take on injured animals,alligators and other large game,,,they organize. Same sex marriage was designed to proceed, not reproduce, and pass away quietly into old age.God's mistakes,leaving no offspring.But who am i,they already know.We are all a cocktail of fluids,chemicals and bones all an experimental home brew. As any divorced father already knows,when one door closes,another opens.For me,i was glad for it as I'm now free to travel the world with my children.My deepest sympathies for those who cannot conceive children of their own. This march can be considered a minority report,3% at best.My heart goes out to them,those who cannot continue their genetic family.Their celebration of their end of too short life,complete with bag pipes.